Ignoring dangers of chemicals is plain foolish

Victor Rozek

Monday

Jul 22, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Ellen Mooney was probably just being kind to the chemical industry. And that should concern us.

In her June 16 guest viewpoint she petitioned the state to stop testing Oregonians for poisons in order to save taxpayer money — a foolishly courageous gesture unless, of course, one were affiliated with Oregonians for Food and Shelter, an industry front group financed by the likes of Dow and Monsanto. Then, any proclamations regarding public health would have all the veracity of the tobacco industry insisting that smoking was not harmful.

Mooney claims to feel safe from the ravages of synthetic chemical spraying, even though nearly 100 percent of her Triangle Lake neighbors tested positive for 2,4D and Atrazine. No testing was done on the levels of hundreds of other chemicals, and the Oregon Health Authority made it clear that more research was necessary.

Meanwhile, timber industry spraying continues, and residents are understandably concerned. Mooney’s proposal is a vote for ignorance — akin to telling the residents of Oz not to peek behind the curtain.

It is generally true that a single exposure to herbicides or pesticides is unlikely to cause demonstrable harm — cause and effect are sometimes separated by years. Pointing to this interval between exposure and illness is the chemical industry’s preferred strategy for avoiding responsibility. The industry would like us to ignore that the consequences of synthetic chemical exposure are cumulative.

The body can’t metabolize the toxics in herbicides and pesticides, so they are stored in fat cells and organs where they begin to interact. In all likelihood, Mooney has already been poisoned and is carrying a chemical body burden shared by everyone on the planet.

The federal Centers for Disease Control began testing people in 1999. Since then, more than 10,000 have been screened and all were found to have hundreds of synthetic chemicals in their system. As far as we know, not one was asked if they agreed to be poisoned.

The diseases linked to synthetic chemical exposure are a medical house of horrors. They include Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, birth defects, infertility, autism, and cancer — conditions that have become pandemic. If Mooney were to graph the increase in production of synthetic chemicals since World War II, then overlay the rise in neurological diseases and cancers during that same period, she would find a near perfect match. The implications for the vitality of the human race are truly sobering.

Equally sobering are the recent findings of Dr. David Crews of the University of Texas, Austin. Crews’ research with animals found that the effects of toxic chemical exposure can be transmitted across generations, even to offspring that have never been directly exposed to the chemical. The phenomenon is called epigenetic transgenerational inheritance, and has been observed in humans. Synthetic chemicals appear to alter the expression of the genetic code. Crews cites distinct neurological and behavioral changes that are passed from one generation to the next.

One-hundred thousand synthetic chemicals are already in widespread use, with 1,000 more being created each year.

They are poorly regulated, and their vast numbers mean that interactions essentially go untested. But the effects are highly visible and can be seen in mutant fish, hermaphroditic alligators, the global die-off of amphibians, and collapsing bee colonies.

It is a sad irony that chemicals that are illegal to dump can be legally added to the food supply, or sprayed on trees.

While it’s certainly understandable that some people believe it is in their self-interest to support timber industry practices, not all are defensible, and certainly not the systematic and deliberate poisoning of our earth, air and water. It is telling that the industry suspended the spraying of 2,4D and Atrazine during the testing period — at least until those pesky health authorities go away.

Industry apologists are certainly free to stick their heads in the sand, but they should at least be aware that the sand is probably contaminated with synthetic chemicals. I, for one, prefer that public funds be invested in public health rather than additional corporate welfare.

The question is not, “How much exposure is safe?” The right question, as scientists are beginning to discover, is: “Are there any safe levels of exposure?” And, with all due respect to Oregon Health Authority, the answer to that question is: No.

Victor Rozek, a resident of the Mohawk Valley, worked for the Native Forest Council 20 years ago as a writer and editor.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Subscriber Services

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
The Register-Guard ~ 3500 Chad Drive, Suite 600, Eugene, OR 97408 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service